ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020
Xigua Video as a Source of Information on Breast Cancer: Content Analysis.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of Cancer-Related Information on New Media (2014-2023): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- The quality and reliability of online video resources concerning patient education for migraine treatment in China Mainland: an electronic media-based study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Qualitative research on undergraduate nursing students' recognition and response to short videos' health disinformation.Heliyon · 2024Article
- A novel system to provide information via online YouTube videos and an evaluation of current online information about hereditary breast cancer.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Content Quality of Web-Based Short-Form Videos for Fire and Burn Prevention in China: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Assessment of the reliability and quality of breast cancer related videos on TikTok and Bilibili: cross-sectional study in China.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Public's preferences for health science popularization short videos in China: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Quality of online video resources concerning patient education for neck pain: A YouTube-based quality-control study.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Assessing the quality of breast cancer-related videos on TikTok: A cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
- Short videos platforms as sources of health information about cervical cancer screening: A content and quality analysis.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeeking health information on the internet is a popular trend. Xigua Video, a short video platform in China, ranks among the most accessed websites in the country and hosts an increasing number of videos with medical information. However, the nature of these videos is frequently unscientific, misleading, or even harmful.
objectiveLittle is known about Xigua Video as a source of information on breast cancer. Thus, the study aimed to investigate the contents, quality, and reliability of breast cancer-related content on Xigua Video.
methodsOn February 4, 2020, a Xigua Video search was performed using the keyword "breast cancer." Videos were categorized by 2 doctors based on whether the video content provided useful or misleading information. Furthermore, the reliability and quality of the videos were assessed using the 5-point DISCERN tool and 5-point global quality score criteria.
resultsOut of the 170 videos selected for the study, 64 (37.6%) were classified as useful, whereas 106 (62.4%) provided misleading information. A total of 41.8% videos (71/170) were generated by individuals compared to 19.4% videos (33/170) contributed by health care professionals. The topics mainly covered etiology, anatomy, symptoms, preventions, treatments, and prognosis. The top topic was "treatments" (119/170, 70%). The reliability scores and global quality scores of the videos in the useful information group were high (P<.001). No differences were observed between the 2 groups in terms of video length, duration in months, and comments. The number of total views was higher for the misleading information group (819,478.5 vs 647,940) but did not reach a level of statistical significance (P=.112). The uploading sources of the videos were mainly health care professionals, health information websites, medical advertisements, and individuals. Statistical differences were found between the uploading source groups in terms of reliability scores and global quality scores (P<.001). In terms of total views, video length, duration, and comments, no statistical differences were indicated among the said groups. However, a statistical difference was noted between the useful and misleading information video groups with respect to the uploading sources (P<.001).
conclusionsA large number of Xigua videos pertaining to breast cancer contain misleading information. There is a need for accurate health information to be provided on Xigua Video and other social media; health care professionals should address this challenge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.